No race or alignment in bg3??

[Najbjerg]

wanna play as chaotic evil halfling..And i wanna make a chaotic evil party.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Alignment is implied, not hard coded.

If you want to play as a 'chaotic evil' character, then make 'chaotic evil' choices.

You can play as a halfdink.

[Grimreaper]

no race???

[Najbjerg]

j

Originally posted by Pan Darius Kairos:

Alignment is implied, not hard coded.

If you want to play as a 'chaotic evil' character, then make 'chaotic evil' choices.

You can play as a halfdink.

thats kinda well,,u pick alignment so dm knows...Havent played ad&d since 2nd edd.

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Originally posted by ChArLiE:

j

Originally posted by Pan Darius Kairos:

Alignment is implied, not hard coded.

If you want to play as a 'chaotic evil' character, then make 'chaotic evil' choices.

You can play as a halfdink.

thats kinda well,,u pick alignment so dm knows...Havent played ad&d since 2nd edd.

In 5e there are very little places where alignment actually matters on playerside. For the vast majority it's just informative. It gives players a guidline on how their chars might behave and gives GMs a way to possibly help players decide how their char would react. Otherwise there's very little to it.
So basically as ha been said....if you want to have a chaotic evil char, make chaotic evil decisions. A checkbox on your character sheet isn't what makes your char any alignment...their actions do...

[Najbjerg]

Originally posted by (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Rusty ♥:

Originally posted by ChArLiE:

j



thats kinda well,,u pick alignment so dm knows...Havent played ad&d since 2nd edd.

In 5e there are very little places where alignment actually matters on playerside. For the vast majority it's just informative. It gives players a guidline on how their chars might behave and gives GMs a way to possibly help players decide how their char would react. Otherwise there's very little to it.
So basically as ha been said....if you want to have a chaotic evil char, make chaotic evil decisions. A checkbox on your character sheet isn't what makes your char any alignment...their actions do...

So a paladin can be neutral? In my world always lawful good/evil..Paladin is op but cause off alignment hard to play..

[Heu, Iterum Id Feci]

Originally posted by ChArLiE:

Originally posted by (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Rusty ♥:

In 5e there are very little places where alignment actually matters on playerside. For the vast majority it's just informative. It gives players a guidline on how their chars might behave and gives GMs a way to possibly help players decide how their char would react. Otherwise there's very little to it.
So basically as ha been said....if you want to have a chaotic evil char, make chaotic evil decisions. A checkbox on your character sheet isn't what makes your char any alignment...their actions do...

So a paladin can be neutral? In my world always lawful good/evil..Paladin is op but cause off alignment hard to play..

The Paladin is bound by it's oath in 5e in general, and BG3 especially. There's a lot of debate going on in these forums about that. But you can be any alignment you like. However, if you don't follow your oath you'll be an oathbreaker (which is a "hidden" subclass for pala)
I dislike Pala so I can't tell you to much more...

[NixAhmose]

Originally posted by ChArLiE:

So a paladin can be neutral? In my world always lawful good/evil..Paladin is op but cause off alignment hard to play..

Actually they made a great change where instead of Paladin's having to stick to a specific alignment, they now have to stick to specific rules based on the subclass they are.

So if you're a Devotion Paladin, you can never tell a single lie or backstab someone.
If you're a Redemption Paladin, you can never use violence in any unless its absolutely necessary.
If you're a Crown Paladin, you can never break a law or go against the nation you serve.
If you're a Conquest Paladin, you can never follow the command of anyone unless they have beaten you in combat.
If you're an Open Sea Paladin, you must work to fight against any system that oppresses people's freedom.

To me, this makes playing Paladin way more interesting, as instead of having to follow the vague and subjective guidelines of the alignment system, each subclass is given their own unique and thematic rules to which you must follow.

[Alealexi]

Originally posted by ChArLiE:

Originally posted by (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Rusty ♥:

In 5e there are very little places where alignment actually matters on playerside. For the vast majority it's just informative. It gives players a guidline on how their chars might behave and gives GMs a way to possibly help players decide how their char would react. Otherwise there's very little to it.
So basically as ha been said....if you want to have a chaotic evil char, make chaotic evil decisions. A checkbox on your character sheet isn't what makes your char any alignment...their actions do...

So a paladin can be neutral? In my world always lawful good/evil..Paladin is op but cause off alignment hard to play..

Yes. A neutral paladin would be more along the lines of a Oath of Glory paladin for Kord.

You can also be a Oath on Conquest Paladin for Kord or if you want to be evil as a servant for the Archdevil Bel.

[hoot hoot]

It's a failing of 5e rules. I think the added freedom is good for a tabletop setting since you and your fellow players can just write your own rules, but in a video game like this, it leaves some of the traditional character building aspects feeling hollow.

If you want what feels like a more traditional "paladins must be lawful-good" style, try one of the Pathfinder games. Both Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous are fantastic and in the same vein as BG3.

[Haven]

Would still be nice to include a selector for it. BG1 let you write your backstory on your character and it never translated into the game just as this wouldn't need to have any mechanical application, but was fun to include for the immersion.

[larhtas]

Originally posted by Asneeze:

It's a failing of 5e rules. I think the added freedom is good for a tabletop setting since you and your fellow players can just write your own rules, but in a video game like this, it leaves some of the traditional character building aspects feeling hollow.

If you want what feels like a more traditional "paladins must be lawful-good" style, try one of the Pathfinder games. Both Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous are fantastic and in the same vein as BG3.

Well that's not true, you can literally do whatever you want in pathfinder after you chose your lawful good alignment. It takes a loooot of time after committing atrocity after atrocity before your alignment changes (as a paladin or anything else).
Here it's way more rational, you fail to your oath "once" and it's done, byebye paladin.

[Trap Queen 85]

Originally posted by Asneeze:

It's a failing of 5e rules. I think the added freedom is good for a tabletop setting since you and your fellow players can just write your own rules, but in a video game like this, it leaves some of the traditional character building aspects feeling hollow.

If you want what feels like a more traditional "paladins must be lawful-good" style, try one of the Pathfinder games. Both Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous are fantastic and in the same vein as BG3.

I feel the exact opposite. Trying to sweep alignment under the rug and move away from the aspects of good vs. evil and divinity when it comes to characters meanwhile the rest of your entire world is built on those aspects it makes zero sense. In table top alignment is absolutely huge for building the world and setting up how societies view and interact with one another and how pantheons work and oppose one another and the relationship of mortals to that. All of this adds to amazing stories and depth in the older table top games. This is one of the few places where I deeply disagree with the direction that 5e took.

The other being races and retconning lore to fit their history into the 'modern audience' trends. What they could have done was just move the story down a different path while keeping the lore as is.

For the video gaming environment I feel 5e works spectacularly [outside of Paladins] because of it's streamlined rule set. The reason it doesn't work for Paladins is because of Oathbreaker imo. Had BG3 gone the route of Solasta when it came to Paladins I think everyone would have been a lot better off.

[Haven]

Originally posted by Trap Queen 85:

I feel the exact opposite. Trying to sweep alignment under the rug and move away from the aspects of good vs. evil and divinity when it comes to characters meanwhile the rest of your entire world is built on those aspects it makes zero sense. In table top alignment is absolutely huge for building the world and setting up how societies view and interact with one another and how pantheons work and oppose one another and the relationship of mortals to that. All of this adds to amazing stories and depth in the older table top games. This is one of the few places where I deeply disagree with the direction that 5e took.

The structure of D&D's multiverse and how the foundational aspects of good, evil, neutrality, chaos, and law all intermingle is one of my favorite parts of the universe and a part that I feel is continually disserviced by 5e. A lot of people dislike alignment, but I'll argue that a lot of people don't know about or understand the weight of alignment on the larger universes of the game, else many would change their mind. Many people I've talked to on the topic in various groups have a very narrow view of it or a view tinted by incorrect understandings of what it actually is.

[Trap Queen 85]

Originally posted by Haven923:

Originally posted by Trap Queen 85:

I feel the exact opposite. Trying to sweep alignment under the rug and move away from the aspects of good vs. evil and divinity when it comes to characters meanwhile the rest of your entire world is built on those aspects it makes zero sense. In table top alignment is absolutely huge for building the world and setting up how societies view and interact with one another and how pantheons work and oppose one another and the relationship of mortals to that. All of this adds to amazing stories and depth in the older table top games. This is one of the few places where I deeply disagree with the direction that 5e took.

The structure of D&D's multiverse and how the foundational aspects of good, evil, neutrality, chaos, and law all intermingle is one of my favorite parts of the universe and a part that I feel is continually disserviced by 5e. A lot of people dislike alignment, but I'll argue that a lot of people don't know about or understand the weight of alignment on the larger universes of the game, else many would change their mind. Many people I've talked to on the topic in various groups have a very narrow view of it or a view tinted by incorrect understandings of what it actually is.

I could not agree more. I feel like it fell victim to the echo chambers of people who dismissed it due to their limited understanding.

[GrandMajora]

Originally posted by Trap Queen 85:

Originally posted by Haven923:

The structure of D&D's multiverse and how the foundational aspects of good, evil, neutrality, chaos, and law all intermingle is one of my favorite parts of the universe and a part that I feel is continually disserviced by 5e. A lot of people dislike alignment, but I'll argue that a lot of people don't know about or understand the weight of alignment on the larger universes of the game, else many would change their mind. Many people I've talked to on the topic in various groups have a very narrow view of it or a view tinted by incorrect understandings of what it actually is.

I could not agree more. I feel like it fell victim to the echo chambers of people who dismissed it due to their limited understanding.

I've said before that if WotC designed an entirely new cosmology for the setting that was not alignment centric, I would have no problem with them changing the mechanics to discard alignment.

But until that day comes, the world building and planar cosmology is heavily grounded in the existence of the alignment spectrum. Which is why it must remain in the game, regardless if people find it stupid or not.